As to the issue of sharpening, there is no simple answer. Because sharpening is done "by the numbers" but instead is highly subjective, it seemed to me that at this early stage unsharpened was the way to display the comparison.

Agreed, but both the AA filter and the Bayer filter cause blur, so some sharpening will be beneficial on both cases (I guess preaching to the choir ). One approach could be to show some examples both without capture sharpening and with the (subjective) capture sharpening that is found optimal in each case. Then the reader can judge the cases. Yet another approach like on dpreview (that I like) is that it is possible to double check by the reader by downloading the RAW files for individual check in the personal favorite RAW processor. When that has been said, I think people read the articles here on LuLa as personal judgement of equipment in use in contrast to the camera reviews on the major review sites where personal opinions by the reviewer takes a back seat. I think the personal opinions are both respected and valued when they are stated as such and not as absolutes. No matter how it is done there will be long threads here and there about how wrong it was done

Another issue raised is the false detail from a sensor without an AA filter. It seems to me that one approach to really investigate this rather than debate the theoretical aspects of it, would be to use a much higher resolution image to check to which degree there is false detail. This could be done by zooming in on high frequency detail by going much closer to the subject and stitch the pictures to a (very) high resolution picture where the false detail will be revealed in comparison. There may be other ways to do it. I know it would be quite work intensive to do this, but it may put an end to some of the discussion and make some conclusions about this issue. And see how the AA filter equipped D800 will fare in this comparison as well.

I will say that in prints made with my usual input and then print sharpening, the difference seen and described relatively remain the same, so it's likely an academic issue at best. But I will do some further comparisons with appropriate sharpening.

Hi Michael,

Appreciated. What you'll see is that Capture sharpening the D800 images will boost the MTF of the lower spatial frequencies as well. That should bring the results much closer together. The only thing the D800E will do better is very low contrast (and high frequency) micro-detail.

Another issue raised is the false detail from a sensor without an AA filter. It seems to me that one approach to really investigate this rather than debate the theoretical aspects of it, would be to use a much higher resolution image to check to which degree there is false detail. This could be done by zooming in on high frequency detail by going much closer to the subject and stitch the pictures to a (very) high resolution picture where the false detail will be revealed in comparison. There may be other ways to do it. I know it would be quite work intensive to do this, but it may put an end to some of the discussion and make some conclusions about this issue. And see how the AA filter equipped D800 will fare in this comparison as well.

The simple way to demonstrate if there is any real resolution benefit, is to do an objective comparison of a star target like the free one I proposed. In its center it will demonstrate if the limiting resolution differs or (probably) not by the diameter of the center blur, and how the sensitivity for aliasing differs at various angles by diverging patterns (in color if the demosaicing fails), all in a single shot. That single shot can be an in-camera JPEG and a Raw file if you want to simultaneously verify the quality of the in-camera JPEGs.

Objectivity will help the readers, more than subjectivity/opinions (which will always be contested, this is the internet...) does.

This more three dimensional look is what interests me very much, but i think you have to have two examples and print them first to find out? or can you see it on screen?

In my experience, maxmax 5D and 3 MFDB's you can see it in all media: screen, printed or projected. I hope Michael posts a still life comparing the two 800's. I found it most noticeable on round and shinny objects. Perhaps a restored classic car with chrome bumpers would be a good demonstration? Unfortunately I sent the 5d out had it modified and didnot think to take before and after shots. Attached is an example of the 3 dimensional appearance I took this shot shortly after the modification.Marc

Perhaps a restored classic car with chrome bumpers would be a good demonstration?

I know that Mark Dubovoy posted a bunch of images of classic cars on this site that would be well suited for this test but he doesn't favor the 35mm format. Would be interesting to get his take on the new Nikon.

In my experience, maxmax 5D and 3 MFDB's you can see it in all media: screen, printed or projected.

Hi Marc,

The so-called 3D-effect is IMHO caused by the shape of the MTF curve, and can be applied to other images as well. One just needs to boost the medium frequencies a bit (which also happens automatically when the highest spatial frequencies are Capture sharpened). That's why it indeed shows at all different magnifications.

I own a couple of Sigmas and a NEX which have either no or very light AA filtering. I also have a Kodak 14n with no filter. Over the years of using these cameras, I have gradually become aware of something with respect to filter-less cameras: aliasing. Not the colour moire everyone likes to go on about, but luminance aliasing. I think it looks very characteristic between all the cameras, Foveon and Bayer CFA alike. I dislike it immensely, it renders like a strange noise pattern to my eye.

What I'm talking about is the way that some thin diagonal lines (that are actually tubes) render as if they were made of lego bricks or separate planks of wood, like a laminate. I appreciate this is endemic in the digital picture structure and this is what you see if you zoom in 2000% or so but I'm not talking about simple pixelation. I'm talking about something that is easily visible at 100% as "jaggies" and "strange patterns" that turn smooth tubes into a rope-like weave and make straight edges ripple - if you know what you are looking for. At 200% it is blatantly obvious, even if this is for forensic rather than practical purposes.

I find at realistic prints sizes the jaggies are rarely visible but it makes prints look both sharp and grainy/noisy at the same time in a way that doesn't quite look like noise. I like my little NEX, it should be a perfect lightweight landscape camera but I find the aliasing so obtrusive I've stopped using it.

The huge rez of the D800e should make it much less of an issue but take a look at MR's Moire test shot of the tree. Look VERY carefully at the thin branches, especially those at different angles.

Do you see the jaggies and ragged looking blockiness I see? Look using the full size version you get if you click. I need reading glasses to be sure.

I'd be very interested to find out who sees it and who doesn't, and whether many are bothered by it.

What's most noticeable to me about this shot is the aliasing - and in a shot that is all curves and no patterns. The lip of the bowl at top left hand side just in front of the avocado where it is pure highlight is clearly suffering luminance aliasing on the curve.

In my experience, maxmax 5D and 3 MFDB's you can see it in all media: screen, printed or projected. I hope Michael posts a still life comparing the two 800's. I found it most noticeable on round and shinny objects. Perhaps a restored classic car with chrome bumpers would be a good demonstration? Unfortunately I sent the 5d out had it modified and didnot think to take before and after shots. Attached is an example of the 3 dimensional appearance I took this shot shortly after the modification.Marc

I plan on doing video comparisons, but I'm working the stills side of things for the moment. It might be a couple of weeks yet. Some quick and dirty video clips that I've shoot look very nice.

Lloyd Chambers has done a comparison between the D800 and the Leica S2 and finds that it is somewhere between and raw and a slight win for the Nikon. The D800e will therefore likely win in almost all IQ counts.

The D800e is medium format's worst nightmare. Resolution matching cameras and backs up to 40MP, superior high ISO, equal colour depth, lighter weight, availability of hundreds of lenses, availability of stabilization, live view, video, much higher frame rates, and all for an integrated body costing less than US $3,300.

Michael

Hey Michael,

Since you've tested the Sigma SD1 as well do you feel that at low iso compared to the D800e, the Sigma is dead in the water from the aspect of pure image quality alone in prints 16x20 and under?

Bart, I have been wondering about this, and asked in another thread somewhere. Can you explain what if anything, is the connect between the 3D effect and absence of an OLPF? My naive conjecture is that aliasing effects make the transitions at the edges of objects sharper, and they human visual system responds to this in its interpretation of foreground/background differences.

Just reducing an image would also produce aliasing and this may be the case the tree image.

I'm not really sure about the NEX-7 lacking OLP filter, as I have measured MTF from test images on Imaging Resource and all Sony camera I tested came in about 20%MTF at Nyquist.

On the other hand I have seen moiré on my Sony Alpha 55SLT, but not yet on the Alpha 77SLT which has the same sensor as the NEX-7.

As a side note, Lloyd Chambers (http://diglloyd.com ) has tested the Nikon D800 (with OLP filter) against the Leica S2, with 120 /2.5 Macro on the Leica and Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2.0 on the Nikon D800. Both cameras used deconvulition sharpening, somewhat more on the D800 than on the Leica. The cameras were close in the center, with the Leica having some more contrast but the Nikon was definitively better in the corner. The subject was a building facade with lots of mosaiv and stuccos. The Leica S2 had excessive amount of Moiré.

I own a couple of Sigmas and a NEX which have either no or very light AA filtering. I also have a Kodak 14n with no filter. Over the years of using these cameras, I have gradually become aware of something with respect to filter-less cameras: aliasing. Not the colour moire everyone likes to go on about, but luminance aliasing. I think it looks very characteristic between all the cameras, Foveon and Bayer CFA alike. I dislike it immensely, it renders like a strange noise pattern to my eye.

What I'm talking about is the way that some thin diagonal lines (that are actually tubes) render as if they were made of lego bricks or separate planks of wood, like a laminate. I appreciate this is endemic in the digital picture structure and this is what you see if you zoom in 2000% or so but I'm not talking about simple pixelation. I'm talking about something that is easily visible at 100% as "jaggies" and "strange patterns" that turn smooth tubes into a rope-like weave and make straight edges ripple - if you know what you are looking for. At 200% it is blatantly obvious, even if this is for forensic rather than practical purposes.

I find at realistic prints sizes the jaggies are rarely visible but it makes prints look both sharp and grainy/noisy at the same time in a way that doesn't quite look like noise. I like my little NEX, it should be a perfect lightweight landscape camera but I find the aliasing so obtrusive I've stopped using it.

The huge rez of the D800e should make it much less of an issue but take a look at MR's Moire test shot of the tree. Look VERY carefully at the thin branches, especially those at different angles.

Do you see the jaggies and ragged looking blockiness I see? Look using the full size version you get if you click. I need reading glasses to be sure.

I'd be very interested to find out who sees it and who doesn't, and whether many are bothered by it.

The simple way to demonstrate if there is any real resolution benefit, is to do an objective comparison of a star target like the free one I proposed. In its center it will demonstrate if the limiting resolution differs or (probably) not by the diameter of the center blur, and how the sensitivity for aliasing differs at various angles by diverging patterns (in color if the demosaicing fails), all in a single shot. That single shot can be an in-camera JPEG and a Raw file if you want to simultaneously verify the quality of the in-camera JPEGs.

Bart,

I have the 800E on order, and would perform the test if I had the camera, but I don't and so I can't at present. Since Michael has both cameras, he could do us a great service by taking shots of the target and posting the images. One could gain a great deal of information with minimal effort.

I have the 800E on order, and would perform the test if I had the camera, but I don't and so I can't at present. Since Michael has both cameras, he could do us a great service by taking shots of the target and posting the images. One could gain a great deal of information with minimal effort.

I appreciate this set of comparisons. For me, though, the real issue isn't whether or not the D800e would be sharper with no sharpening, or the same sharpening as the D800. The question for me is whether the 800e would be sharper if files from both cameras were sharpened to their maximum potential, especially using deconvolution. The 800e files probably can take less sharpening before showing artifacts.

I wasn't clear on whether the second set of comparisons was done with identical sharpening or not. But to me it looks like the 800 file could handle more sharpening, especially for printing.

It is also interesting to me that the second set of comparisons was so much less dramatic than the first. So it sure seems that optimal sharpening could be a big player in any real world usage.

I appreciate this set of comparisons. For me, though, the real issue isn't whether or not the D800e would be sharper with no sharpening, or the same sharpening as the D800. The question for me is whether the 800e would be sharper if files from both cameras were sharpened to their maximum potential, especially using deconvolution.

And right you are.

Quote

The 800e files probably can take less sharpening before showing artifacts.

Yes, that's what's to be expected, QED.

Quote

I wasn't clear on whether the second set of comparisons was done with identical sharpening or not. But to me it looks like the 800 file could handle more sharpening, especially for printing.

That's what is often the case for larger output sizes. The (onset of) aliasing is a limiting factor for the amount of output sharpening, although there are applications that do better than average.